Why do Generals tolerate getting grilled by senators?

[Schmedlap]

Really, is this the right board for a libertarian screed?

Let's be honest. Most businessmen go to Congress not to be subjected to a horrific Star Chamber, but rather to beg and bribe for subsidies or favorable regulation. And they get it far more often than not.

I love it. In law school, people think I'm part of the religious right. In business school, people think I'm for big government. Now at SWJ I'm a libertarian? Please.

I agree with your "most businessmen" statement. But I wasn't talking about "most" businessman. I had in mind businessmen who get subpoenaed.

The idea that having won a senate seat by general election is a stronger achievement and legitimation than being appointed by a promotion board (and confirmed by a senate committee) is also rare.

While some Generals may be political, that is a far cry from having a political machine pushing your career forward.

In regard to the promotion board versus election, consider that the people on the promotion board tend to know something about the profession. How much do you think the average voter knows about any of the issues that their elected representatives will tackle?

In regard to election being an "achievement" consider how heavily voters weigh factors such as party affiliation, race, gender, sex, "good looks" and name recognition.

[Ken White]

Now you CAN think lowly of the voters and comment on how money rules in politics, but that's exactly the attitude that I consider to be dangerous for a democracy.

You may do that. Given the fact that we've been a democracy for over 200 years and you have less than 70 years at it, you'll forgive me if I pay little attention to a concern that is overstated -- and fails to realize that Americans always slam politicians. They may be respected by some in Europe but here they generally are not. They're just fellow citizens who have big egos and enough money to get elected. They are no more endowed with wisdom than are any politicians anywhere.

Democracy is in peril if the respect for its institutions is gone - look at Germany in the 20's. 'A republic without republicans'*.
It's especially in peril if an officer has more respect in the public than a representative of the people.

I doubt either has an excess of respect from most Americans. THAT is as it should be. They're people, no more, no less -- some are good and some are not. Over here, for most people, respect is accorded only if earned by a person, not by his or her job (military excluded; 'respect' must be and is proffered by law -- but even in the Armed Forces, true respect is still really given to seniors ONLY if earned).

Is it too much if one expects that the U.S. doesn't repeat dumb mistakes that were already demonstrated by others? How about limiting yourself to dumb mistakes that don't have the not-invented-here sticker? There's already enough of those.

We don't, we make our own; that's enough without copying any other nation's. Been doing that for those 200 years I mentioned and probably will for another 200 or so. Enjoy. We mostly are enjoying it.

P.S.: Someone who would suggest that a German general deserves much respect by a German member of a parliament would be rated as almost or certainly fascist in Germany.

That's scary. Weird even. Really. Was that not sort of the case there back in the 30s? The Generals were derided, sidelined and the Politicians took over. How did that work out?

Politicians are generally crooked to one extent or another, worldwide, nearly as I can tell. Goes with the job. They bear considerable watching, distrust even. Some Generals are crooks also and bear watching -- in the end both are people and they should be judged as individual people, not as job holders.

Respect is an earned commodity; it does not automatically accrue to any job.

[John T. Fishel]

1. US citizen (natural born or naturalized - makes no difference)
2. Not less than 30 years old.
anybody who meets those 2 qualifications can run for Senate - not a very high bar.

Cheers

JohnT

[tequila]

I love it. In law school, people think I'm part of the religious right. In business school, people think I'm for big government. Now at SWJ I'm a libertarian? Please.

Just by way of explanation, I wasn't implying you were personally a libertarian --- just that your statement had a marked political lean in that direction.

Also, which businessmen have been subpoenaed lately that you thought were being subjected to an unfair hearing?

[Steve Blair]

Actually, all told, I'd love to see some senators or representatives hauled into a no-holds-barred Q&A session with a group of unscreened "real folks" (televised live, of course, with no editing or tape delay) and see how long they'd last. Moderators would be on hand to make sure the august personages would actually *answer* the questions. Never gonna happen, but it would be interesting.

And that's not a political message...more an idea. Now if we made it a pay-per-view we might be able to make some coin off it....

[Blackjack]

I personally found the exchange between Senator Graham and the three flag officers enlightening and professional and honorable all around. I also found it interesting as to the alleged failings of Germany and Italy regarding their NATO commitments to the ISAF regarding police and judiciary reconstruction. This was something I was not aware of before watching the hearings.

Rather it is a Congressperson or General Officer testifying in the hearing one should respect the position and the individuals merits first and foremost.

Civilian control and oversight while very important to me personally, does not ensure an ethical, component, fiscally responsible, or well trained fighting force. Civilian control does not necessarily mean the aims will always be toward a democratic republic either. Many of the elected leaders use the annual defense authorization bill to line their own pockets, or shore up pet projects for their states every year for example. Should I blindly respect such behavior, should anyone? Some elected officials are little more than bullies, or worse, criminals.

One of the wonderful things about the people of the US, and the institutions that make up the USG is this. Even if one gains office, or appointment or government service position they must continually prove themselves capable of holding such a position for the most part. Now some offices and positions may be about who you know, but that is only good for getting one's foot in the proverbial door. Once a person is in the system they will be judged on their deeds, or lack thereof. One thing that struck me in this thread was the idea of a people who view their political leaders as being superiors deserving of respect based upon their election alone, without regard to merit. That my friend is extremely dangerous thinking. Simply because some one puts on a uniform and wears the rank of General does not assure respect, nor does being elected assure respect. It is more about the merits of the person holding the office and less about the fact that they hold an office.

As I write this there is a congressperson in rehab for second time for abuse of drugs and alcohol. A few more are up on charges ranging from fraud to bribery. Yet these 'distinguished gentlemen and ladies' are allowed to remain in office in spite of being an alcoholic and a pill head. Now, if a General Officer was doing the exact same thing he would most likely be relieved for cause immediately and his career would be over. In fact is anyone holding the rank of Sergeant is found abusing drugs in the US Army, they can kiss their career goodbye. As some one mentioned before, military leaders are held to higher standards of conduct than elected leaders. That may be the reason the military leader gets a bit more respect in some situations.

[yamiyugikun]

Thank you, everyone for enlightening me. I really didn't understand the context of the clip I posted, nor the background of Senator Graham. Learning about civilian control of the military is still very new for me. I can appreciate more how our democracy works, and the intersection of politics/military at those hearings.

[Fuchs]

Why, Fuchs, I didn't know you cared...

I care because the USA is (still) an ally of my country and it's - in modern terms - too big to fail.
The sheer size means that any major failure hurts more than your own country.

The alliance also means that we can be (and are) held responsible for your failures. The alliance and friendship is a connection that can hurt is if your country does dumb things.

That's why I care.
I don't care about Luxembourg's politics - it's a great country, but simply too small to hurt us in any way.

The (in my opinion very poor) U.S. foreign policy in the Near and Mid East has already hurt my country. We've had dozens of dead civilians and soldiers.
The U.S. foreign policy has overall degraded - not improved - my country's national security despite and because of the alliance.
An U.S. that runs into even worse waters with a poor political culture and poor priority system can hurt us even more.

I believe the reactions to the senator/general affair that despise the senator and are in love with the rank of the general display a very poor political culture. Americans may be used to it, but that did never and will never make things right. You're used to a lot of stupid things that would ruin our lives if more countries would get used to them as well.

[Steve Blair]

I believe the reactions to the senator/general affair that despise the senator and are in love with the rank of the general display a very poor political culture. Americans may be used to it, but that did never and will never make things right. You're used to a lot of stupid things that would ruin our lives if more countries would get used to them as well.

I don't think you quite grasp the subtle nature of the reactions, but then again I'm not sure if you're really aware of the internal context of these reactions, either. Boxer is cordially disliked by many, and anyone who got grilled by her in anything approaching a rude manner would likely get some sympathy. I personally know plenty of military people (both current serving and retired or out of the service) who believe that you have to in essence sell your soul to make general rank, and would consider them not much different than Boxer. Feel free to read some dire prediction about the future of America into those reactions if you wish, but also understand that there are many in this country who would have exactly the opposite reaction (despise the general and love the senator). That's one of the interesting things here, and one that seems to confuse a great many people.

[Uboat509]

1-4 star general:
Limited edition. About 300 in the army alone.
Had to convince a couple dozen people, at most a few hundred to support him to get his rank.

Senator:
Limited edition. 100 (well, 99 as of today)
Had to convince several hundred thousand voters (in this case several millions) to get the seat.

How much one has to play politics to become a general is debateable. I doubt most senators can name any general they confirmed who wasn't named in the press for one reason or another, ie. General Petraeus. For the most part, I imagine that they just confirm whoever the services nominate unless there is some glaring problem. What is not debateable, however, is that in order to be nominated for your first star, you have to get there. You have to serve 20+ years (or there-abouts) from O1 to O6, and you have to do it with out any major mistakes. Conduct that has become routine for some of our elected officials is an automatic no questions asked career killer for military members. IMO the three biggest things that a politician needs to A) get elected and B) stay there, are political saavy, charisma, and money. Having more of one generally means that you need less of the others but you still need them. On the other hand, for a GO, money gets him nothing and charisma and political saavy will only get him so far, especially at the company and field grades. By the time someone has reached the point of consideration for his first star, he has commanded troops at different levels, held multiple staff positions and been to multiple schools, the purpose of which is to teach him to be a better officer, and he has to be successful at every level. If you fail at any level you are done. So yes, a politician has to politic millions of voters to get and keep his seat vs. the General's "few hundred," but that is all he has to do.

Now you CAN think lowly of the voters and comment on how money rules in politics, but that's exactly the attitude that I consider to be dangerous for a democracy.

And pretending that money doesn't buy a disproportionate amount influence is even more dangerous. It's also, IMO, willfuly naive.

Democracy is in peril if the respect for its institutions is gone -

I agree whole-heartedly, respect for our institutions, including the military is very important.

look at Germany in the 20's. 'A republic without republicans'*.

If memory serves, it was politicians not soldiers built the Nazi Party.

It's especially in peril if an officer has more respect in the public than a representative of the people.

I completely disagree. I fully expect military members to command more public respect than politicians for the same reason that I expect Police, Firefighters, Paramedics and Teachers to command greater public respect than politicians. They dedicate their lives to service to the nation. They often endure great hardships and poor pay to serve. Police, Firefighters, Paramedics, and military members in particular are routinely expected to face mortal danger. Nobody joins these professions to get rich.

Someone who would suggest that a German general deserves much respect by a German member of a parliament would be rated as almost or certainly fascist in Germany.

I have seen, first hand, how some segments of German society view/treat the military. It's certainly not something I would choose to brag about.

SFC W

[Ken White]

The (in my opinion very poor) U.S. foreign policy in the Near and Mid East has already hurt my country. We've had dozens of dead civilians and soldiers.
The U.S. foreign policy has overall degraded - not improved - my country's national security despite and because of the alliance...

I think that in view of our mutual history since 1917 I'll forgo any comment on that line of thought.

On this

...An U.S. that runs into even worse waters with a poor political culture and poor priority system can hurt us even more.

It is probably superfluous to point out that your objections to a culture and priority system reflect merely your opinions. It is not superfluous to say that the ill informed arrogance thus shown does your net credibility on any topic more harm than good.

[Fuchs]

I guess it's equally superfluous to remind you that the U.S. ran into disasters during the past decade only when it ignored advice and objections from continental Europe and emphasized that it is used to follow its own way.

Ignorance about details is once thing, and easily cured; the repeated inability to grasp the value of foreign warnings is far worse.
You got into the financial world economic crisis like that and you got into the Iraq war mess like that.

[jmm99]

post # 17.

Some children do not play well with other children.

Some adults are disruptive of discussions.

[J Wolfsberger]

A couple of observations.

First, the ruckus over Boxer's behavior has little to do with general vs. politician. It has, I think, much to do with the American sense of fair play. The general was appropriately courteous and polite to Boxer. Her remarks were an entirely inappropriate cheap shot. (At least one person I know observed that she worked even harder to earn another title, and she wouldn't have to change any monograms to use it.) She knows it, and is backing down. But being the person she is, I expect her to blame the general for her embarrassment.

Second, in the points you raise about your own country, ask yourself who were the better men: Hitler and the political leadership, or Guderian, von Keselring, von Manstein, and several hundred others who behaved professionally and as morally as the situation permitted. Soldiers, and generals, are innocent of the crime of war. Politicians are not. If modern Germany is holding the generals responsible for WW II, then modern Germans have a serious problem.

[Steve Blair]

A couple of observations.

First, the ruckus over Boxer's behavior has little to do with general vs. politician. It has, I think, much to do with the American sense of fair play. The general was appropriately courteous and polite to Boxer. Her remarks were an entirely inappropriate cheap shot. (At least one person I know observed that she worked even harder to earn another title, and she wouldn't have to change any monograms to use it.) She knows it, and is backing down. But being the person she is, I expect her to blame the general for her embarrassment.

This is really the main point to be understood here. Without some background in the current US political system and its players (and knowing those who annoy people more quickly than others), the discussion won't make much sense. Much like needing to hear an interview in its original language, if you don't understand the context of this discussion with an American audience, you will reach the wrong conclusions.

Fuchs, you're simply reading too much into a discussion about a single senator's behavior. For every rude politician we have one who is courteous and proper during hearings. You don't seem to understand the reaction Boxer can generate in people. That's all.

[Ken White]

I guess it's equally superfluous to remind you that the U.S. ran into disasters during the past decade only when it ignored advice and objections from continental Europe and emphasized that it is used to follow its own way.

memory. I've been here all that time and was not aware we had any disasters -- other than the random hurricane or tornado.

Ignorance about details is once thing, and easily cured; the repeated inability to grasp the value of foreign warnings is far worse.

I think you're confusing deliberately ignoring -- which we did and do with great regularity; something about considering the validity of the source -- with "inability to grasp."

You got into the financial world economic crisis like that and you got into the Iraq war mess like that.

Actually, as you say the financial crisis is a world (actually just a European hearth. Greedy bankers will be greedy bankers where ever located *) phenomenon; Iraq was a mess mostly because the US Army erred, not due to US policy error. You may think the end result is not worth it. I disagree. Too early to tell in totality but indications thus far are that it accomplished what it was supposed to and did the world more good than harm.

Though it admittedly did mess up the EU Constitution and a few cozy commercial arrangements some in Europe had in the area. Both probably good things for many. Sorry about that..

* Except in Canada -- with more lax regulation than in Germany or the US, the Canadian Banks did not let their greed get ahead of their common sense.

[Schmedlap]

... just that your statement had a marked political lean in that direction.

My bad. I just assumed that lack of respect for politicians was fairly common amongst all ideologies and parties. I probably should have clarified why I commented. My thought at the time was that military officers are nothing special in this context. Congress bring people from all walks of life up to their committees and do it for shameless political points as often, if not more often, that they do for legitimate reasons. Even those who do not have a professional obligation to remain respectful and courteous - such as businessmen - do remain so. It is rare to see someone rightfully dish it back to the Congress at these hearings.

Also, which businessmen have been subpoenaed lately that you thought were being subjected to an unfair hearing?

When the subpoena is part of a political stunt to play populist politics, that is unfair, imo. The most unfair instance that comes to mind was the subpoenas for Exxon-Mobil, ConocoPhillips, BP, Chevron, and Royal Dutch when gas prices were high (there's probably a better example, but that's the one that comes to mind). The most absurd, imo, was the big tobacco fiasco (smokers don't know that cigarettes cause cancer, the execs don't believe that cigarettes cause cancer, and Congress wants to get more tax money). Reasonable people can disagree, but I also think it was more theater than concern when Yahoo and Hewlett-Packard came under scrutiny. The Yahoo subpoena might have started out reasonable, but it turned into a joke when a Congressman called Yang a moral pygmy (pot, meet kettle).

Thank you, everyone for enlightening me. I really didn't understand the context of the clip I posted, nor the background of Senator Graham.

If you get a chance, go to your state supreme court and watch two lawyers argue a case. You will see very tough questions, fired rapidly, that may come off as having a hostile tone. After you watch the first lawyer, you will think, "wow, the court had it in for him. He just lost." Then the other lawyer gets up and faces the same treatment. The tone and intensity of the questioning should not always be mistaken for hostility, disrespect, or some other ill intent. A panel of judges has a limited amount of time hear answers to their questions before they can make an informed decision. There is little patience for someone who is unprepared and cannot answer questions that the person should be prepared for. If a Congressman cares about the country and takes the job seriously, then the same is true at these hearings for the Congressman as for the judges at oral arguments.